CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #9

[LietKynes]

Agree. Assuming she was there.

Ita.

A 'loaded' post, if there ever was one.
We have been going over and over RT's words.
Trying to be respectful to him and struggling to believe a story that wobbles when under scrutiny.
Every detail of that day should have been burned into his mind.

For starters, he has not revealed even the type of shoes/boots.
There are a myriad of hiking footwear styles.
If she was lost and became disoriented and her boot fell off -- anyone who found it wouldn't know this was Barbara's boot.
A red hat or a white hat ?
What beer container-- a can of Bud or a Yeti cooler ?
He said maybe someone took her --did they carefully make sure she dropped nothing, hat or drink ?
On and on, ad nauseam.

According to the VI insider LE verified that she was there based on pictures of her taken there on that day.
Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

BBM
Re. the bolded -- Agreed.

There is a possibility that LE had their reasons.
Maybe they're building a case ?
It'd be nice if they dropped a few hints-- but LE aren't known to do that if they don't want to 'spook' someone.

If there's a chance she wasn't there --could the photos have been taken on a different day--- and the time stamp changed ?
Would LE know this instantly but keep silent about it while they look into other aspects of RT's life ?
This is standard protocol to look closely at the last person to have seen her .
Nothing unusual about it.

 

[GordianKnot]

According to the VI insider LE verified that she was there based on pictures of her taken there on that day.
Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

Saying there are pics that indicate she was "there" is incredibly vague, though.

Where is "there?"

The desert somewhere?
Or exactly the spot where the RV was parked?
Answer: We don't know.
But we do know LE is tracking their movements back to hours before BT was reported missing, b/c they went and collected video surveillance footage from the gas station where RT bought ice that morning.

Why would LE be doing that if they had pics of BT alive and well hours later at the exact spot RT reported her missing from?

Logically, that doesn't make much sense to me.

JMO.

 

[artsy1]

Saying there are pics that indicate she was "there" is incredibly vague, though.

Where is "There?"

The desert somewhere?
Or exactly the spot where the RV was parked?
Answer: We don't know.
But we do know LE is tracking their movements back to hours before BT was reported missing, b/c they went and collected video surveillance footage from the gas station where RT bought ice that morning.

Why would LE be doing that if they had pics of BT alive and well hours later at the exact spot RT reported her missing from?

Logically, that doesn't make much sense to me.

JMO.

Maybe they were trying to verify the timeline to see if any timestamps on the photos had been fudged.

 

[Kittybunny]

Yes, if he was in any way responsible for her disappearance, there seem to be many scenarios he could have invented to make it more believable.
He could have at least put more time and distance between the last time he saw her and when she went missing.
If he really wanted people to believe she was abducted, he could have planted something along the road, like her cup or hat, or sunglasses.
Imo

To some degree, I don't disagree with you. There are better stories he could have used to explain her disappearance, and done things like extended the time that they were apart, have her go missing in a more difficult or dense terrain area, have her not go missing so close to the road (unless of course, abduction was going to be his go-to-diversion) - if he had this somewhat planned.

But then, I always think this about so many of the cases we follow here on WS (Chris Watts for example, but he is not at all the only one). Probably because as dispassionate observers who are logically thinking, our thought patterns are completely different than someone who would commit murder (not RT specifically, just generally). A few traits that murderers seem to share is that 1) they think that they are smarter than anyone else, including LE; 2) that their lies will be believed because they said so and 3) they don't ever seem to realize that the person they got rid of was a living human breathing with many people that loved them, cared for them, and aren't just going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, if you say so then, OK. How sad, let's move on with our lives." It is so often these people, and us WSers that help continue to drive that message home and throw a wrench in the works that helps LE keep digging till they find the truth.

 

[LAhiker]

Maybe they were trying to verify the timeline to see if any timestamps on the photos had been fudged.

Good point. LE may also have gotten the surveillance video from the gas station as part of an effort to reconstruct and verify RT and BT's movements up until the point when RT said BT disappeared. In addition to confirming their location earlier in the day (and thus provide support for any time-stamped photos in the desert), such video might enable LE to see RT and BT's demeanor and condition, and possibly to make sure no one was following them. JMO

 

[MsBetsy]

o, i did not know the VI had said this! BT was definitely there that day due to photographs that show her with the correct date stamp?
thanks Betsy xo

Well, apparently.
It hasn't been reported, but the VI did clarify that LE said there were pictures. I don't think he mentioned time stamps, but he did not indicate that LE questioned the pictures. Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

Saying there are pics that indicate she was "there" is incredibly vague, though.

Where is "there?"

The desert somewhere?
Or exactly the spot where the RV was parked?
Answer: We don't know.
But we do know LE is tracking their movements back to hours before BT was reported missing, b/c they went and collected video surveillance footage from the gas station where RT bought ice that morning.

Why would LE be doing that if they had pics of BT alive and well hours later at the exact spot RT reported her missing from?

Logically, that doesn't make much sense to me.

JMO.

I assume he meant at the location where she went missing.
Those would be the pictures in question, and I'm assuming that's how LE verified she was there, and that was why he asked LE about the pictures.
Or maybe he didn't ask and they just told him.
I would assume LA obtained the surveillance pictures from the gas station to verify his story.
They have never indicated that the timeline did not add up. Imo

 

[RANCH]

Well, apparently.
It hasn't been reported, but the VI did clarify that LE said there were pictures. I don't think he mentioned time stamps, but he did not indicate that LE questioned the pictures. Imo

If any photos had been deliberately altered I would bet that an arrest would have been made by now. JMO

 

[LAhiker]

I assume he meant at the location where she went missing.
Those would be the pictures in question, and I'm assuming that's how LE verified she was there, and that was why he asked LE about the pictures.
Or maybe he didn't ask and they just told him.
I would assume LA obtained the surveillance pictures from the gas station to verify his story.
They have never indicated that the timeline did not add up. Imo

While the timeline may indeed add up, I don't think LE would go out of their way to tell us that it did or did not.

If the timeline did not add up, LE would be involved in an ongoing investigation of whether that was important and what really happened, and they would be unlikely to say anything until they were ready to name a person of interest or suspect or to make an arrest.

If the timeline did add up, LE might be a bit more likely to say so, but given that they haven't named RT as a PIO or suspect, they might feel no need to clear him. In addition, @PommyMommy has said that in her experience the SBCSO tends to be very close-mouthed. JMO

 

[LAhiker]

If any photos had been deliberately altered I would bet that an arrest would have been made by now. JMO

While that's possible, doesn't LE usually wait until they have enough evidence for someone to be prosecuted for a crime to arrest them? (And the crime they would be interested in would probably be more serious than providing altered photos to the police.)

Note that I'm not saying a crime has been committed. I'm saying that the lack of an arrest does not necessarily mean that LE thinks a crime was not committed, or that they have no suspects. JMO

 

[LietKynes]

If any photos had been deliberately altered I would bet that an arrest would have been made by now. JMO

Emph. mine
Agreed.
One would assume so !

Although I can think of reasons why LE would pause.

 

[GordianKnot]

I assume he meant at the location where she went missing.
Those would be the pictures in question, and I'm assuming that's how LE verified she was there, and that was why he asked LE about the pictures.
Or maybe he didn't ask and they just told him.
I would assume LA obtained the surveillance pictures from the gas station to verify his story.
They have never indicated that the timeline did not add up. Imo

I'm not willing to assume anything related to BT's disappearance.

Especially given the fact that LE has said nothing publicly about photos of BT that were taken that day.

JMO.

 

[RANCH]

Emph. mine
Agreed.
One would assume so !

Although I can think of reasons why LE would pause.

Very true.

I think that if RT was stupid enough to tamper with photo evidence he would also not do a very good job of hiding or destroying other evidence. JMO

 

[overtone]

Hi all.

New to this thread, i have one question? Maybe this has been awsered already and i apologise now if so. But how did they become split up on this hike?

 

[LAhiker]

Hi all.

New to this thread, i have one question? Maybe this has been awsered already and i apologise now if so. But how did they become split up on this hike?

According to the husband, Robert Thomas, when they were returning from a walk and not far from the RV, he paused to take a picture but his wife Barbara Thomas wanted or needed to get back to the RV, so she went on ahead of him. He says she turned a corner and disappeared. Or something like that.

To catch up, I strongly suggest reading the "Media thread -- no discussion" that @PommyMommy started:

AZ - AZ - Barbara Thomas, 69, Timeline, Media, Maps, *NO DISCUSSION*

JMO

 

[darring21]

There are a lot of people that will believe that RT was grumpy because a clerk told that to the VI who told us and that BT was agitated because the kennel worker told the VI. However, they don't believe there are photos of BT at the desert even though the police told the VI. They believe that the police don't believe an abduction occurred and use that to point the finger at RT but don't believe the police don't suspect foul play even though that has been reported. Too many adjust the facts to fit their theory instead of adjusting their theory to fit the facts. Confirmation bias makes for false accusations.

There was a case where a 5 year old autistic boy in North Carolina ran from his father and was missing. Many people (including some on this board) voiced their suspicions of the father. The boy was later found dead in the creek near the park they were at. The suspicions were unfounded and just served to make a bad situation worse.

 

[rosesfromangels]

There are a lot of people that will believe that RT was grumpy because a clerk told that to the VI who told us and that BT was agitated because the kennel worker told the VI. However, they don't believe there are photos of BT at the desert even though the police told the VI. They believe that the police don't believe an abduction occurred and use that to point the finger at RT but don't believe the police don't suspect foul play even though that has been reported. Too many adjust the facts to fit their theory instead of adjusting their theory to fit the facts. Confirmation bias makes for false accusations.

There was a case where a 5 year old autistic boy in North Carolina ran from his father and was missing. Many people (including some on this board) voiced their suspicions of the father. The boy was later found dead in the creek near the park they were at. The suspicions were unfounded and just served to make a bad situation worse.

Thank you. Thank you!
Yes, let us stick to the facts and not become a vigilante forum. Lives are ruined by reckless and salacious half truths. I am waiting for law enforcement to weigh in.
Thank you for your measured, and responsible post.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Curiousobserver]

According to the VI insider LE verified that she was there based on pictures of her taken there on that day.
Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

And they didn't search 9 days if LE had asked to see pictures and RT said, "well, there aren't any". And LE definitely asked to see his pictures.

 

[Handsome Sailor]

I want her found. And I really don't care what measures the police use to find her.

 

[Lilibet]

And they didn't search 9 days if LE had asked to see pictures and RT said, "well, there aren't any". And LE definitely asked to see his pictures.

Yes, I believe the 9 day search is proof that LE had the photo evidence that BT had been there at some point in the time frame RT gave them. They wouldn’t have endangered people and dogs for that long without a good reason. We can second guess the photos, but it seems pointless to twist ourselves into pretzels to come to a different conclusion IMO.

That there were photos doesn’t in itself let RT off the hook, of course. I’m glad to see LE backtracking to the gas station, for instance, and not making assumptions. As we saw with Chase Merritt and the McStays case in the same county, just because someone (CM) says something doesn’t make it true. That investigation took a very quiet year before the arrest. And even then, there are still those who think CM was innocent. This case isn’t any more clearcut as far as we can see right now. But if anyone can solve it, SBSD has a good chance of doing so.
JMO